An important part of the understanding of what is means to
be human is the question of human freedom. A number of philosophies, social
scientists and theologians argue that the unique thing about humanity it that
human beings can make choices. This assertion, however, has been challenged
in recent times by determinists: we have very little freedom to
choose. For example, it could be argued that our genetics and our
environment have shaped who we are and how we will respond to different
situations.

While this seems like a rather modern issue, the question
of human freedom has been explored for many centuries by various religious
traditions.

Eastern Religions:

In Hinduism discussions of
freedom do not center on the question of human freedom to choose. It is assumed
that within a certain set of circumstances, individuals have the freedom to
choose. The best example of the issue of freedom may be found in the Bhagavad
Gita. The issue is not whether Arjuna can choose, but what will
Arjuna choose: Will he choose to do his duty or choose to abandon his
appointed duty in an attempt to avoid negative consequences? Whatever he chooses
seems to lead to problems: Negative karma for abandoning duty or negative
karma for killing his own kinsmen. Problem is he knows his choices will lead
to consequences. This freedom to choose, however, leads to consequences that
are played out over countless lifetimes.

The issue then
is not whether one has freedom to choose. The question is how
does one find freedom from negative karma-samsara. How to find
this release from karma-samsara (moksha) is central to Hinduism.

Buddhism is very
similar to Hinduism with its assumptions about karma-samsara. Humans are
free to choose; real freedom is freedom from suffering. Human condition is
summed up in the four noble truths which culminate in confronting the
believer with a choice. Will you choose the 8 fold path? The dharma
(teachings) of the Buddha lead to ultimate freedom: the cessation of being,
becoming, i.e. to Nirvana.

Western Religions

Among the Western religions, the
concept of freedom is not freedom from something; rather the focus has been
on freedom to choose, and the context of that freedom with the divine will.
Issue is once again the question of the sovereignty of God and the freedom of
humanity.

In Islam,
the emphasis has been on freedom to choose to do God’s will. I.e. to submit
one’s own will to God’s will. One’s responsibility is to submit.

In Judaism, the
emphasis on human freedom is on using one’s choices in interaction with God.
Certainly does not lessen idea of choosing submission and obedience. Here it
is using one’s freedom to choose to develop the full potential of one’s
humanity. Highly elevated view of human ability: Tremendous freedom: even
to interact with, question and influence God’s action. Co-creator. One’s
responsibility is to exercise the freedom; to choose.

In Christianity the issue
of human freedom is more complex. In fact, Christianity wrestles with the
question of whether we have any freedom to choose. During the Fourth Century
AD this issue was debated two leaders of the Church: Pelagius and Augustine

Pelagius: Argued that
human being have total freedom to choose. Indeed, if people cannot make
choices, how can they be held accountable for their actions? Moreover, human
beings are “morally neutral”:

“we are born not fully
developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; we are formed naturally
without either virtue or vice….”

Pelagius seems to reflect the
line of reasoning taken up later by Islam which believes that human
being are morally neutral. In Judaism you have a similar concept, but
in Judaism it is believed that every individual has two impulses.

Yetzer tov “the
good impulse”

Yetzer ra “the
negative impulse” not necessarily evil. More of an instinct for self
preservation without which there would be no marriage, no children, no work,
no homes, no food, etc. Human beings have the ability to control this
instinct for self-preservation. In other words, the need to eat does not
necessarily lead to stealing food.

The important thing to
remember is thattin both Judaism and Islam human nature is pretty much
morally neutral, and people are free to choose. One could argue that Pelagius
is merely following the understanding that was prevalent in Judaism and,
consequently, among the earliest Christian community.

Augustine

Disagreed with both of the
points that Pelagius makes.

Human beings are not morally neutral. Human nature is
sinful. The sinful Adam is transmitted to every human being. Original
Sin. Because of their sinful nature, humans are not able to choose
that which is good and right. Human beings can only choose
disobedience.

If Human beings cannot choose the good, they have no
real freedom to choose. Moreover, if humans could truly choose, they
would decide what happens. How can God be all-powerful and not be the
ultimate determiner of everything that happens?

Augustine’s line of reasoning
was followed centuries later by the Reformer, John Calvin who went so far as
to speak of the “necessity of sinning.” For Calving, the sinful nature of
humanity and the lack of freedom to choose, led to full development of the
concept of predestination. God decides everything.

Jacob Arminius

Combined two: God’s
predestining grace is needed to set people free of sin, but God has given
people enough freedom to choose to respond to that Grace.

I.e God knows in advance who
will respond positively; those are the ones God predestines to salvation.

This was central to the debates
of the 17 and 18th centuries.

Catholic: Midway between
Pelagius and Augustine. Human capacity to choose is wounded, not destroyed.